iStockphoto tougher than Alamy now?

11/04/2009 11:07:37 AM · #1

Alamy submissions always make me a tad nervous because they're so attentative to detail and quality issues, yet lately iStockphoto seems to be kicking back harder, and I'm not sure if rightfully so.

Example - submitted a couple to iStockphoto a few days ago. They came back rejected yesterday with "artifacting". They looked exceptionally clean to me so I turned around and submitted one to Alamy last night - same photo - and got the QC passed notice this morning.

What's up?!

pineapple

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

11/04/2009 11:14:21 AM · #2

Show everyone the photos with some 100% crops. Life is competitive :)

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/04/2009 11:16:57 AM · #3

Originally posted by pineapple:

Show everyone the photos with some 100% crops. Life is competitive :)

I would, but then I'd have to watermark them.

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

11/04/2009 11:40:29 AM · #4

istock always was tougher. I haven't had a single rejection at alamy (knocks on wood), while istock regularly picks one or two of any uploaded bunch for artefacts

Chinarosepetal

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III

Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM

11/04/2009 11:49:46 AM · #5

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by pineapple:
Show everyone the photos with some 100% crops. Life is competitive :)

I would, but then I'd have to watermark them.

If it's a 100% crop then it's only a fraction of the picture and doesn't need watermarking :)

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/04/2009 12:34:55 PM · #6

Originally posted by eyewave:

istock always was tougher. I haven't had a single rejection at alamy (knocks on wood), while istock regularly picks one or two of any uploaded bunch for artefacts

Ok. Valid point. Guess maybe part of the "toughness" I felt from Alamy is their one bad/all bad policy. That bit me once not long after I started with them. Sent in a CD with 58 photos...yep, one got kicked back so they all got scratched. Since having the ability to upload files now it's been easier - just send in smaller batches. :-)

Chinarosepetal - I'll get back to you. :-P

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s

11/04/2009 01:55:12 PM · #7

I uploaded 3 pictures 1.5 weeks ago so I can start selling and they are still pending approval. Does it normally take this long?

JulietNN

Canon EOS-7D

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

11/04/2009 02:23:31 PM · #8

dreams has a backlog i think too, currently 157 hours till approved or not =(

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/04/2009 02:32:22 PM · #9

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:

I uploaded 3 pictures 1.5 weeks ago so I can start selling and they are still pending approval. Does it normally take this long?

Approval or denial of initial submissionss can take up to four weeks at alamy. Once you're approved it usually takes 2 or 3 days.

11/04/2009 02:38:19 PM · #10

Originally posted by eyewave:

Originally posted by Dirt_Diver:
I uploaded 3 pictures 1.5 weeks ago so I can start selling and they are still pending approval. Does it normally take this long?

Approval or denial of initial submissionss can take up to four weeks at alamy. Once you're approved it usually takes 2 or 3 days.

My last one at Alamy was less than 12 hours for approval. That's fast!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/04/2009 03:36:10 PM · #11

Originally posted by eyewave:

Good info - I was about to ask this question. Four weeks, huh? Do they send an email? I'll have forgotten all about it by then!

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/05/2009 02:28:32 PM · #12

Originally posted by eyewave:

istock always was tougher. I haven't had a single rejection at alamy (knocks on wood), while istock regularly picks one or two of any uploaded bunch for artefacts

agreed. Alamy is run, and advertised an an 'unedited' collection. They check for file quality but not for image quality or saleability. So really, Alamy is probably one of the easier places to get images online.

11/05/2009 03:11:22 PM · #13

Originally posted by leaf:

... Alamy is run, and advertised an an 'unedited' collection. They check for file quality but not for image quality ...

What's the difference between "file quality" and "image quality"?

ETA - Alamy Upload Checklist

From the checklist...

Please confirm that you have checked images for quality and they are (partial list):
- Able to withstand scrutiny at 100%.
- Spotless images.

Message edited by author 2009-11-05 15:17:56.

dmadden

Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM A

11/05/2009 03:36:47 PM · #14

That site for me has always been the most difficult to get images into. My understanding of the MStock industry was that, the seller would make up in volume sales what was lost in actual image value. The model when it started also campaigned on a "get those pictures off your hard drives and start making money" idea. Well based on the now ridiculous reviews process, nothing could be further from the truth. My volume sales dropped tremendously so I'm practically giving away my images. And to top it off, the reviews process make it even more costly. The truth is a lot of noobs have evolved and are submitting work with technical quality on par or better than what pro's used to submit to traditional macros.

I've started dealing directly with agancies and companies selling RM and RF images, this works much better for me. Whatever does'nt sell goes to sit in macro. I've practically stopped uploading to micro because i think the model has now failed.
Just my experience and I'm not discouraging anyone from contributuing to MS.

ganders

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/05/2009 04:42:08 PM · #15

I agree entirely; I gave up even trying to submit to micros a couple of years back when I realised that their technical demands were (even back then) higher than 'regular' stock. Ironically, the small number of pictures I put up before that point (and which would never in a million years get through approvals these days) continue to give me a steady income.

Where I disagree, however, is when you say the model has failed. Clearly, microstock can pull enough people willing to put up with the extremely demanding standards to maintain their libraries.

leaf

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/07/2009 09:02:01 AM · #16

I agree with ganders. I really don't think you can say 'microstock has failed' In terms of the agencies. iStock - the most successful sells images worth $800,000 on a good day... that is a single day. For uploads, Shutterstock added nearly 100,000 images to their collection last week. There are lots of buyers and lots of photographers - the model is working quite well.

@glad2badad - with image quality and file quality (perhaps not the best choice of terms) I was referring to the fact that Alamy wants the file to be good quality. No scratches (if from slides) no dust, no jpg artifacts from upsizing etc. These things are just technical problems that have to do with the file. In regards to image quality - how the actual pictures looks - if it is salable or not, or 'good stock' they don't judge.

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/07/2009 09:33:04 AM · #17

I uploaded 4 qc shots to Alamy last Wed. They passed QC about 12 hours later! woohoo! I havn't tried any micro sites yet.

11/07/2009 10:40:27 AM · #18

Originally posted by mpeters:

I uploaded 4 qc shots to Alamy last Wed. They passed QC about 12 hours later! woohoo! I havn't tried any micro sites yet.

Was that your first upload to them? I've been waiting a week so far. Could be I did something wrong. Or that I suck but they're keeping me in suspense.... :-)

drial7m1

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/07/2009 07:26:46 PM · #19

I've found that iStock has become much more difficult since it was aquired by Getty. I have a friend that is an exclusive with iStock and he is able to get his photos reviewed within 24 hours in most cases, mine will sit for as long as 7 days, I have received multiple rejections that other stock sites have taken due to "Artificating" at full size and "the overall lighting" issue while he is able to submit photos from the same shoot without issue. I would have to say that iStock seems as if they are becoming more exclusive than before and they are making sure that if your not one of their "exclusive" photographers then it's much tougher on you. Good business practice or not who knows.

As far as Alamy, looks like I'm going to start to upload to them and see.

Have a great weekend to all.

Douglas.

dmadden

Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM A

11/07/2009 09:48:02 PM · #20

I made a mistake, I was'nt making myself clear when I said the model failed. The model Microstock itself is extremely successful. It's the baiting concept that drew me in that has failed for me. The concept of "reward" in volume sales to counter the give-away selling price of 25c and up. No matter what I try, I cant get high volume per image. I have to keep cramming as much uploads as I can and sales still diminish. It was the total opposite when I just started.
I cant speak for anyone else, but this is my position now.

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/07/2009 10:28:35 PM · #21

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by mpeters:
I uploaded 4 qc shots to Alamy last Wed. They passed QC about 12 hours later! woohoo! I havn't tried any micro sites yet.

Was that your first upload to them? I've been waiting a week so far. Could be I did something wrong. Or that I suck but they're keeping me in suspense.... :-)

It was my first try. I'd procrastinated for a long time--finally decided I'd just do it! I was extra careful to de-spot the images, then I gave them a slight boost in contrast/curves, resized and submitted. When I uploaded they had a note showing backlog time of 37 hours FWIW.

Was your upload your first as well?

11/08/2009 01:35:46 AM · #22

Originally posted by mpeters:

Was your upload your first as well?

Yes, and I briefly saw that 37 hour comment but then it went away. And still no word or indication, so I'm guessing that means they really liked yours and figured mine weren't worth the time. Congrats! I suspect you'll make enough for a new camera in no time!

mpeters

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/08/2009 11:27:08 PM · #23

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by mpeters:

Was your upload your first as well?

Yes, and I briefly saw that 37 hour comment but then it went away. And still no word or indication, so I'm guessing that means they really liked yours and figured mine weren't worth the time. Congrats! I suspect you'll make enough for a new camera in no time!

Well, i'm recently unemployed so a camera may need to wait! :( I'm sure yours will make it through QC.